Senate approves Keystone XL pipeline

[Natural Citizen]

A depot used to store pipes for Transcanada Corp's planned Keystone XL oil pipeline is seen in Gascoyne, North Dakota November 14, 2014. (Reuters/Andrew Cullen)

The Republican controlled Senate passed a bipartisan bill approving construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, prompting a showdown with President Barack Obama, who has promised to veto the legislation.

In a 62-36 vote, Republicans were able to peel away multiple Democrats from President Obama’s position on the pipeline, ensuring easy passage for the bill once it cleared a filibuster. If Obama vetoes the bill as promised, however, supporters do not have the 67 votes need to override his decision.

Both the House and Senate are expected to reconcile any outstanding issues quickly, meaning that the bill could land on Obama’s desk within days. The White House insists it will veto construction proposals until an ongoing review process by the State Department is completed

Continued - Senate approves Keystone XL pipeline



Previously - Sioux Tribe: Passing Keystone Pipeline ‘An act of war"

[video=youtube;s6N8ZIk22rg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422503916&v=s6N8ZIk22rg&x-yt-cl=85027636[/video]

“We’re going to do everything within our powers to protect our homelands, our people, and as I said, our children and grandchildren – your children and your grandchildren,” he said.

“The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren,” Scott said following that vote.

“The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” said Scott. “We are outraged at the lack of intergovernmental cooperation. We are a sovereign nation and we are not being treated as such. We will close our reservation boarders to Keystone XL. Authorizing Keystone XL is an act of war against our people.”

He added that the Rosebud Sioux had been protesting in a spirit camp for seven months and they are protecting the land in South Dakota.

“Most of all, people don’t understand the Ogallala Aquifer is the second biggest water aquifer in the world,” Scott said. “It supplies five or six states with water in the United States, and its level in some places is only six feet underground.”

The Keystone XL pipeline will be buried underground at depths of four feet, and there are concerns about the pipeline springing leaks. Scott says it is not a question of if it breaks it is a question of when it breaks.

“The aquifer collects three percent of all rainfall. Every hundred gallons of tar sand oils is going to take a couple hundred gallons of chemically treated water in that pipe to come down – and when that break happens we are going to receive three percent into the aquifer, and it is going to poison your children and our children,” said Scott.

Aside - Eminent Domain defined

 

[invisible]

Is a list of the roll call available anywhere? I'd be really interested in seeing who voted against it, I suspect they're unfortunately all democrats. Hopefully at least one or two Republicans had the guts to vote against it. If this makes it to obomba's desk, and he vetoes it, that might actually be the first thing he does right after all his time in the oval office.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Is a list of the roll call available anywhere? I'd be really interested in seeing who voted against it, I suspect they're unfortunately all democrats. Hopefully at least one or two Republicans had the guts to vote against it. If this makes it to obomba's desk, and he vetoes it, that might actually be the first thing he does right after all his time in the oval office.

It'll get a veto. I'm more interested in the critters who support it to reserve time to justify their subsequent support for the tyrannical outlying factors that come with it. My guess is that they won't touch them with a ten foot pole until they're forced. And that will have to come from alternative media, for sure. There just isn't any accountability any more from these people. I think they're just looking to get paid. All of them. They'll sell the people out in a country second if their hopeful doners have stake in some of these foreign ventures.

 

[moostraks]

Is a list of the roll call available anywhere? I'd be really interested in seeing who voted against it, I suspect they're unfortunately all democrats. Hopefully at least one or two Republicans had the guts to vote against it. If this makes it to obomba's desk, and he vetoes it, that might actually be the first thing he does right after all his time in the oval office.

I was just thinking I cannot believe my hope is on Obama right now. Really? Geesh. My T&P are with the Sioux Tribe on this one.

 

[moostraks]

It'll get a veto. I'm more interested in the critters who support it to reserve time to justify their subsequent support for the tyrannical outlying factors that come with it. My guess is that they won't touch them with a ten foot pole until they're forced. And that will have to come from alternative media, for sure. There just isn't any accountability any more from these people. I think they're just looking to get paid. All of them. They'll sell the people out in a country second if their hopeful doners have stake in some of these foreign ventures.

Well said!

 

[tony m]

It'll get a veto. I'm more interested in the critters who support it to reserve time to justify their subsequent support for the tyrannical outlying factors that come with it. My guess is that they won't touch them with a ten foot pole until they're forced. And that will have to come from alternative media, for sure. There just isn't any accountability any more from these people. I think they're just looking to get paid. All of them. They'll sell the people out in a country second if their hopeful doners have stake in some of these foreign ventures.

Good.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I was just thinking I cannot believe my hope is on Obama right now. Really? Geesh.

I know, right?

Scwewy, for sure.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Roll Call Votes: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-roll-call-vote-keystone-xl-pipeline-28592511

No Republicans voted against it. Marco Rubio didn't vote.

The 62-36 roll call Thursday by which the Senate passed a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline Act.

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 9 Democrats and 53 Republicans.

Voting no were 34 Democrats, 0 Republicans and 2 independents.

Democrats Yes

Bennet, Colo.; Carper, Del.; Casey, Pa.; Donnelly, Ind.; Heitkamp, N.D.; Manchin, W.V.; McCaskill, Mo.; Tester, Mont.; Warner, Va.

Democrats No

Baldwin, Wis.; Blumenthal, Conn.; Booker, N.J.; Boxer, Calif.; Brown, Ohio; Cantwell, Wash.; Cardin, Md.; Coons, Del.; Durbin, Ill.; Feinstein, Calif.; Franken, Minn.; Gillibrand, N.Y.; Heinrich, N.M.; Hirono, Hawaii; Kaine, Va.; Klobuchar, Minn.; Leahy, Vt.; Markey, Mass.; Menendez, N.J.; Merkley, Ore.; Mikulski, Md.; Murphy, Conn.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Peters, Mich.; Reed, R.I.; Schatz, Hawaii; Schumer, N.Y.; Shaheen, N.H.; Stabenow, Mich.; Udall, N.M.; Warren, Mass.; Whitehouse, R.I.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats Not Voting

Reid, Nev.

Republicans Yes

Alexander, Tenn.; Ayotte, N.H.; Barrasso, Wyo.; Blunt, Mo.; Boozman, Ark.; Burr, N.C.; Capito, W.V.; Cassidy, La.; Coats, Ind.; Cochran, Miss.; Collins, Maine; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Cotton, Ark.; Crapo, Idaho; Cruz, Texas; Daines, Mont.; Enzi, Wyo.; Ernst, Iowa; Fischer, Neb.; Flake, Ariz.; Gardner, Colo.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Hatch, Utah; Heller, Nev.; Hoeven, N.D.; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Johnson, Wis.; Kirk, Ill.; Lankford, Okla.; Lee, Utah; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Moran, Kan.; Murkowski, Alaska; Paul, Ky.; Perdue, Ga.; Portman, Ohio; Risch, Idaho; Roberts, Kan.; Rounds, S.D.; Sasse, Neb.; Scott, S.C.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Sullivan, Alaska; Thune, S.D.; Tillis, N.C.; Toomey, Pa.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.

Republicans Not Voting

Rubio, Fla.

Independents No

King, Maine; Sanders, Vt.

 

[moostraks]

Just saw this and wanted to share in this thread:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...-tribes-could-swing-mid-term-elections-157542

...The quantity of the oil was measured by gauging the depth of the oil in the producer’s tanks before any was pumped out, the depth of the oil after the tank was pumped and the temperature of the oil to account for expansion or contraction. A fourth measurement determined the quality of the oil. “Koch gaugers were instructed to misstate each of these elements in the company’s favor and fraudulently report their phony measurements on the run tickets.” A gauger who reports that the company took more oil than it paid for was said to be “long” or “over.”

Comparing Koch Oil’s data with that of 30 other natural resource companies, which represented 80 percent of all gas and oil production on Indian lands, the committee determined that “Koch’s data during the last three years was consistently ‘over’ each year, acquiring $31 million more oil than it paid for…. The records indicated that about one-quarter [emphasis added] of Koch’s 1988 profits in crude oil can be attributed to obtaining oil it did not pay for.” In 2000, CBS 60 Minutes reported that Bill Koch estimated profits from the oil stolen from American Indian and other federal lands would total at least $230 million...

Koch Oil CEO and Chairman of the Board Charles Koch, while admitting under oath in testimony before committee investigators that the company was taking more than copy0 million a year in oil it did not pay for, said “[Oil measurement] is a very uncertain art … And you have people [measuring] who aren’t rocket scientists … [No] one can ever make an exact measurement … There is a lot of uncertainty … and you [have] got tremendous variations.”

However, the committee examined the records of comparable companies including Sun, Kerr-McGee, Phillips and Conoco and found their measurements were accurate, without significant overages or shortages and “they did not acquire a significant amount of crude oil without paying for it.”...

So where did all this money now being used to manipulate the outcome of U.S. elections come from? In the whistleblower trial Koch Industries admitted it had taken copy70 million worth of oil from American Indian and other federal lands without paying for it, AP reported. The eventual “price” of that oil was the $25 million fine.

 

[invisible]

Thanks, Zippy. Interesting to see that the worst Senators we have are the ones that voted correctly on this. It's very weird to see the role of the "good guys" and "bad guys" completely reversed here. With the oil price collapse, the whole project has become a boondoggle. It's also interesting to see that most of the democrats who voted for it come from states with lots of fracking activity, and that no one from a state that the proposed pipeline will pass through voted against it. And how disgusting to see wankford and cotton now listed in the roll call as Senators. Ugh. Sad to see that the only Republican who at least had the backbone to not vote for it was the rube - or was he simply MIA that day and skipped the vote?

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/29/1361002/-Nine-Democrats-join-53-Republicans-in-approving-Keystone-XL-President-Obama-s-veto-certain

So the Cory Gardners can't be talking about how banning fracking will cost 100,000 jobs in Colorado or whatever he claimed.
But the Dems seem to reflect all the worst of the US government, a bunch of special interest groups vying for their private agenda - without the fascist bent of the Republicans holding them together.

Oh, so this is how Democrats react when their politicians don't vote the way they want them to on a single issue. Nice to see the similarities line up.

 

[Natural Citizen]

House approves Keystone XL pipeline despite veto threat

In a 270-152 vote led primarily by Republicans, the House passed the same bill that the Senate itself approved last month. The pipeline was first proposed in 2008 and would carry oil 1,179 miles from Canada’s tar sands to Nebraska, where it would connect to an existing pipeline and continue traveling south.

While the bill easily sailed through the House, President Obama has maintained that he will veto the measure in order to let a federal review of the issue play out. If Obama does veto the measure, neither the House nor the Senate have the votes needed to override his decision. It would be only the third time in his presidency that Obama has vetoed a bill.

Native American tribes have also spoken out against the pipeline, since it would cut through Native land in Nebraska in order to connect with an existing pipeline.

Supporters of the bill have pointed to the economic advantages of the pipeline, noting that construction would add billions of dollars to America's GDP and create thousands of jobs. However, only 35-50 people would be required to maintain the pipeline after it is completed, making opponents question its long-term benefits.

 

[Brett85]

Is the only reason why people here are opposed to the pipeline is because of concerns of private property abuses? I mean, we already have pipelines that go all across the United States. Should all of those pipelines be abolished? Should we have no way of transporting oil across the United States?

 

[William Tell]

Is the only reason why people here are opposed to the pipeline is because of concerns of private property abuses? I mean, we already have pipelines that go all across the United States. Should all of those pipelines be abolished? Should we have no way of transporting oil across the United States?

2 wrongs don't make a right. You shouldn't use an appeal to precedent. You can justify anything bad that way. I can see how its a tough vote though.

Besides, private property concerns are not the only reason. Justin Amash explained why he voted "present" on Keystone on facebook.

I voted present on H R 3, Northern Route Approval Act. The Keystone XL pipeline is a private project owned by TransCanada Corporation. This bill improperly exempts TransCanada Corporation—and no other company—from laws that require pipeline owners and operators to obtain certain government permits and approvals.


I support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and holding it up for over four years (with no end in sight) for political reasons is wrong. It's improper, however, for Congress to write a bill that names and benefits one private project, while doing nothing to address the underlying problems that allowed such delays to occur. The Constitution gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," but the Rule of Law requires that legislation be of general, not specific, applicability. A proper bill would address the circumstances that allow *any* such project to be held up for political reasons, not just Keystone XL.


As F.A. Hayek explained in The Constitution of Liberty: "It is because the lawgiver does not know the particular cases to which his rules will apply, and it is because the judge who applies them has no choice in drawing the conclusions that follow from the existing body of rules and the particular facts of the case, that it can be said that laws and not men rule. Because the rule is laid down in ignorance of the particular case and no man's will decides the coercion used to enforce it, the law is not arbitrary. This, however, is true only if by 'law' we mean the general rules that apply equally to everybody. This generality is probably the most important aspect of that attribute of law which we have called its 'abstractness.' As a true law should not name any particulars, so it should especially not single out any specific persons or group of persons."


My commitment to my constituents when I took office was that I may vote present on legislation in three extremely rare circumstances (this is the 12th present vote out of nearly two thousand votes in Congress): (1) when I could otherwise support the legislation, but the legislation uses improper means to achieve its ends, e.g., singling out a specific person or group for special treatment; (2) when Representatives have not been given a reasonable amount of time to consider the legislation; or (3) when I have a conflict of interest, such as a personal or financial interest in the legislation—a circumstance that hasn't happened yet and I don't anticipate happening.


H R 3 uses improper means to accomplish its laudable goal by singling out TransCanada Corporation and its Keystone XL pipeline for special treatment.
It passed 241-175-1.

https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/557041991001878?fref=nf

 

[William Tell]

That post above by Justin was from 2013, here's his post from yesterday. He voted NO this time:

The latest ‪#‎KXL‬ bill combines the cronyism of previous bills—specially exempting one private company from the laws and regulations that apply to all other companies—with new, unrelated sections empowering the EPA and the federal government with respect to local energy efficiency. I voted no.

https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/846639612042113

 

[Brett85]

Well, Rand and Thomas Massie both voted for it. I wouldn't say that opposing the Keystone Pipeline is clearly the libertarian position. It seems to be an issue that libertarians are divided on. Arguably the small government position would be to vote "yes."

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, Rand and Thomas Massie both voted for it.

And they were both, in my view, acting recklessly in doing so. That pipeline will run right through the second largest aquifer in the world. The largest in the U.S.

Numerous states are dependent upon it.

And that is aside from other issues that have previously been mentioned.

 

[Brett85]

And they were both, in my view, acting recklessly in doing so. That pipeline will run right through the second largest aquifer in the world. The largest in the U.S.

Numerous states are dependent upon it.

And that is aside from other issues that have previously been mentioned.

But what's the libertarian reason for voting against it? Aren't libertarians generally supposed to support getting the government out of these issues? And wouldn't the small government/anti government intervention position on this issue be that the government shouldn't stand in the way of a corporation that wants to transport oil across the United States?

 

[Natural Citizen]

But what's the libertarian reason for voting against it? Aren't libertarians generally supposed to support getting the government out of these issues? And wouldn't the small government/anti government intervention position on this issue be that the government shouldn't stand in the way of a corporation that wants to transport oil across the United States?

Perhaps. I don't care about any of that, TC. The human position is that you don't drop a foreign (or any) tar sands pipeline on the second largest aquifer in the world. And again, the largest in the U.S. That is reckless on so many levels. Eminent Domain and all of that aside.

What we have here is Growth vs Survival 101.

 

[William Tell]

But what's the libertarian reason for voting against it? Aren't libertarians generally supposed to support getting the government out of these issues? And wouldn't the small government/anti government intervention position on this issue be that the government shouldn't stand in the way of a corporation that wants to transport oil across the United States?

I already pointed out that this is favoritism to a specific company. This is favoritism. It gives a certain company exclusive treatment.